We had an interesting conversation the other day – four of us, with a 25% woman representation. From a bunch of directions, we finally reached #MeToo. While we all agreed on there being no excuse for a conscious man committing such acts, we did argue about a couple of points. One, our individual reactions to something that might happen in front of us, which IMO is subjective and contextual, and two, the responsibility of those who commit such acts, but were not in control of their mental faculties.
The second is something that has intrigued me since I saw an excellent Malayalam movie called Mumbai Police. Yes, our titles are geography agnostic. 🙂 The movie was released in 2013, and since then, I have read quite a few books that approach the subject.Â
[Spoilers ahead]
The movie begins with a cop (played by Prithviraj) conveying, in a call to his boss, that he has solved a case, without revealing the culprit. He immediately meets with an accident, and becomes amnesic. The victim in the original case is a common friend (also a cop) and so there is obviously a personal interest for all concerned. His boss keeps Prithviraj’s amnesia a secret and asks him to solve the case after he becomes physically fit. Prithviraj retraces his steps and pretty much dismantles all the conclusions he himself had made. He behaves like a conscientious officer and man, but from the skeptical reactions of folks around him, we get an understanding that he was quite a different character before the accident. It finally turns out that Prithviraj himself was the culprit.
The question that remains unanswered is what would constitute justice here. The new Prithviraj is a transformed man and has no idea of his past actions. Does he deserve to be punished? There are other examples in this line of thought. Homicides committed by mentally ill folks, or for instance, does consensual sex with Alzheimer patients constitute rape? While we have arguably evolved enough to be lenient to those who are certifiably ill, how does this work for those who are temporarily not in control of their mental faculties – either due to substance abuse, or some short term chemical imbalance in their brains?
It is possible to argue both ways. One book that is particularly relevant in this context is Michael S. Gazzaniga’s “Who is in charge? In addition to determinism, free will, the impact of nature and nurture etc, he brings out this conflict of neuroscience and ethics. One really doesn’t know one’s mind, let alone others’. As one of my favourite observations states
It is possible that at some point, science will evolve to an extent that attribution will be easy, but then again, by that time, we might have evolved enough not to commit them in the first place!